Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).
Oh for heavens sake will you put this "we are all the same." The only reason evolution is taught like this is that left wingers didn't want capitalists to use evolution as an argument for laissez fair economics, and no one wanted evolution to be used as an excuse for genocide. It's a well intended lie, but its still a lie.
The fact is, some things are better than others in the scope of their environment. Size brings complexity and with complexity comes a reduced pace of life and adaptation. We can manage the environment as individuals better than a bacteria could, but bacteria outsurvive us because they breed faster.
a) First Democrats were terrified of losing everything in the wake of 9/11. Up until the invasion of Iraq, their strategy was to try and out Republican the Republicans on national security. And, the American people were -super- pissed off. There was a poll that came out just after 9/11 that showed that 90% of all Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Despite the whole classroom incident, Bush on the rubble at the WTC with the megaphone was one of the greatest moments of any President in our lifetime, so great, frankly, that he milked that one moment for the rest of his term without ever really living up to it again.
You have to remember that if Democrats go lefty after 9/11, they might lose the Senate worse than they did. In those days, a Republican veto proof majority meant that Social Security becomes privatized. With the stakes that high, there's really no limit to what the Democrats would do to save their baby.
b) Democrats are actually patriots too, and they might have actually felt betrayed. Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions, let Pakistan become completely islamified and ignored crackdowns in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and finally we bombed the wrong side in the balkans war, to do a favor to the muslims.
All of this brought us nothing, but 9/11. So yeah, they were in a political climate where they felt they had to be ruthless, or lose everything.
When you adjust for inflation, during Bush's second term the NIH budget shrank. It actually got smaller. You can find the change rates as published in the New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665/F1 [nejm.org]
The same chart shows that Bush raised the NIH budget by almost 15% for each of his first four years. This is after adjusting for inflation. In fact, we can find some more direct evidence:
The ASM has endorsed a $2.7 billion increase for the NIH in FY 2001, a 15 percent increase in funding which would bring the NIH budget to a level of $20.6 billion.
"President George W. Bush said last week that he will request a record $2.8 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health in his 2002 budget proposal. But some biomedical science groups say that the figure--a 13.8% boost, to $23.1 billion--is only a starting point for their campaign to win a $3.4 billion boost."
"The FY 2009 Discretionary Budget Authority request for the NIH is $29,230 million"
So, over the course of his entire term, Bush boosted funding for NIH from 20 billion to 30 billion. The bulk of the increases came during his first term. Note that despite having spent 200 billion dollars over the last 8 years, there have no cures for cancer, the flu, or the cold. So, not only did this olive branch of increased federal spending completely fail the Republicans politically, if we go by the left's yardstick of missile defense, the scientists doing all this research actually accomplished nothing.
Actually, my comment was not designed to highlight how all the "good stuff" gets funded better by Democrats. I was hinting at the fact that Bush's administration gave the NIH a really shitty budget. Period. That's what I meant by all research. I meant everything funded by NI
Bush doubled the NIH budget. The one cut there was was in his last year, but that still left them far above the levels when he got in.
In fact, I would bet that if we had a time machine, ALL research would probably do better without Bush, with the exception of "research" done to support abstinence only programs and homosexual conversion therapy.
Please, spare the hype. We could just as easily say that the only thing Democrats want to research is how to turn us into government cheese gobbling homos. I mean, after all, Democrats have no problem spending 5 times as much on stopping HIV than they would the regular flu. God forbid we actually research a cure that benefits straight white males. One wonders why does everyone else have to give up smoking or eating decent food as prevention for heart disease or lung cancer, with no research into a cure, but, people can't be bothered to control their own sex lives?
Fact is, President Bush and the Republican Congress jacked up funding for a great many things that will likely be curtailed in this administration.
Research into fuel cells has been suspended by Obama. While this seems like a big hurrah for those think the hydrogen economy is a sham, the underlying problem of fuel cells is about designed better and better membranes to allow the hydrogen and oxygen to pass through and give up the electron on the way to becoming water. There's all sorts of fringe benefits from membrane research - including desalination, environmental cleanup, better time release for pills, and so on. But President DUMB ASS killed that because he had to suck it up to his windmill worshipping anti-car crowd.
Any research into missile defense is going to be stopped. It has nothing to do with the engineering problem being difficult - after all, a lot of other things the fed is plowing money into is hard. It's just that, Democrats think we are all safer when we are naked nuclear targets. So, in order make Democrats feel good, we lose all the experimental data for reactivity in hypersonic realm, which would certainly benefit civilian space flight.
Speaking of space flight, there's a pretty big rumor that Democrats want to kill the NASA manned space effort. Guess putting people on Mars, learning how to survive in deep space for extended periods, is not such a big deal. Guess we'll just stay on earth for all eternity.. way to go Dems.
Any research into medical differences due to race and gender are going to be crushed, as Democrats usually try and crush any scientific research that highlights physiological differences between different people. Perhaps they are willing to let people die to avoid offending their obsessive quest for a made up physical equality.
Managed to obtain marketshare due to anti-competitive behaviors that put Netscape out of busines
IE was better than Netscape, and, Apache did more to kill Netscape than Microsoft did. Netscape's money business was going to be selling expensive web servers to enterprises, and Apache gave one away for free.
If I was a drug lord, why would I even bother with a pricey American made AR-15 style semi-auto, when I can get a cheaper military surplus AK-74 with a full auto switch, and some RPGs...
The thing is, you really don't need a lot of people for a biotech drug conspiracy. Most of the prime movers are phds and so there's not that many to begin with. Everyone else below the chain can be manipulated to some degree.
I was a programmer for a class action lawsuit where the scientists stuffed the placebo group with dying people, and actually one dead person, in order to gin up the efficacy of their drug. They published their findings and got the stock to their little biotech company to go through the roof, and it all came crashing down when the FDA told the scientists, and the rest of the world, that their application was basically b.s. Of course, the scientists had sold -their- stock beforehand, so they got rich.
But, to do so, they had:
a) misrepresented the drug's efficacy to actual patients. b) lied to thousands of investors.
And you know, THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. Yeah, they had to settle for a mountain of money, but they had already got a bigger mountain of money.
I keep hearing about how all of these other ground based telescopes with adaptive optics are "better than Hubble", but I've yet to see a single one actually top the four pixel image Hubble made of Pluto. Let me know when any ground based telescope can actually resolve Pluto's surface features, and then I'll be a believer.
The thing is, adaptive optics have limitations. Hubble does not have them. Space based astronomy is a powerful asset.
Quite honestly, I think the whole debate over manned versus unmanned space flight is rather senseless. When I run for Senate as a Republican, I promise I will accuse Democrats of losing the space race and triple NASA's budget so that we have:
a) a second generation re-usable space plane... just because, it would be bad ass. b) the constellation for long range moon, asteroid and mars missions that are manned. c) I want f--- JIMO to be built. I want nuclear powered robot space craft flying all over the solar system. Let's go find out if there is life on Europa. d) Fund a solar sail as well.
Doing all of that would have a space exploration budget of 50 billion a year. That is completely chump change compared to the overall US budget.
Firefox mplements many features which are not published standards
All the -moz CSS3 tags that FireFox has can be very useful. In particular, the one for multicolumn text is nice, as is rounded corners on the web page.
What a wonderfully US'ian idea ! Turn the taking of a couple of photographs into the Gunfight at the OK Coral.
Hey, we take our picture taking seriously over on the this side of the pond. I would have thought my post moderate, as I could have advocated that the young man have a UAV following him around via his cell phones GPS. Then, when the rentas tried to hastle him, he could have invoked a 500lb bomb upon himself. Nobody would ever question that ATM again!
Can they actually do that? My understanding is that the landing gear are still not remotely deployable.
I think not. I actually met one of the programmers that did the flight control software for the Buran. He used to joke, Americans put astronauts in spaceships because their remote control is not as good as ours.
It doesn't matter what their market share is, Microsoft already lost. The web is now firmly based on open standards, not proprietary technology tied to a specific operating system.
If someone could make a browser that did something that was not part of the standards, that appealed strongly to content producers, then, you could get a proprietary based internet. It's that CSS / HTML does the job that people perceive they want Browsers to do.
There's only perception of a barrier. IE rocketed to the top because it was better. Everyone wrote for it as it had a working (as in fully scriptable) DOM and supporting Netscape was a huge PITA. But there was not near the content on the web in the late 1990s, when this all happened, as there is today. So there's inertia, but inertia is not a barrier. If alternative browsers continue to execute well, and IE continues to stagnate, then, IE will naturally lose and we will reach a time when people will only support FireFox...just like they ditched Netscape.
its heat shield is replaced after every launch as it wasn't designed to be perfect
The replacing the tiles after every launch was actually not part of the original program. Originally the Shuttle was supposed to have a 10 day turnaround time. Like, it lands, they clean it up a bit, and send it off to orbit, almost like an aircraft. You know, it is a -spaceplane-. I still have the Rockwell literature from when I was a kid on it.
Anyway, I think the first cracked or damaged tiles showed up on the first flight. Then the Challenger accident introduced even more procedures. Had we stuck to the original plans for the shuttle, and had a fleet of 10 or so, we would have had a much better STS.
I was actually pretty anti-shuttle for a while but I've come to really appreciate it. I'm actually secretly hoping that Congress will do the politically nutty thing and keep the shuttle, with incremental improvements, to sustain LEO development and recovery of in space objects, and also have the Constellation for long range missions.
While from a human health perspective, free range chicken and cows seem the "natural way to go", it does use a lot of land and land use is a big factor in greenhouse gasses. Conversely, the industrial chicken coop could store thousands of chickens in a rather small, almost hermetically sealed building.
Whaddya think of KDE 4.2.x?:D Also, I've never used QT Creator. *downloads it*
I think KDE 4.2 is bad-ass. I give it 3.5 out of 4 stars. This is from someone who has posted that Vista is better than Ubuntu or Kubuntu. I couldn't stand KDE 4.0 but I really like KDE 4.2. It's got that ease of use that I like so much about Gnome but it also has the workmanship and flexibility that I like from KDE. I would say that its as good as Vista in -some- areas, and arguably better in others. The assignment of applets to the task bar is better in KDE - actually always has been, but Vista still has way better common file dialogs.
QT Creator is pretty cool. I made a simple application that looks at SVG files and pulls stuff out, displaying them, and it was pretty easy to do in Qt Creator. I could not figure out how to get the forms editor to blend with normal edited code, but I'm sure there is a way. The forms editor itself is much better than the resource editor that comes with Visual Studio, the signals and slots mechanism is interesting coming from an MFC style event binding mechanism, and, above all, the class help is indexed much better than the SDK help is in Visual C++.
I would say that Visual Studio is still better for general C++ development because the intellisense works better... but you can certainly make pretty damned applications for Linux and in some ways Linux is better. I've had 64 bit Linux running for four years now and Microsoft cannot bring a 64 bit Windows to my machine because there is no signed SATA controller driver. Me wonders, how does Linux make all of these drivers for free, when they have no money?
Microsoft needs to move off their laurels because Linux tools are really recapturing the lead in C++. Microsoft needs to make Visual C++ 10.0 a killer for writing native code applications, or they are looking at Linux making a major development breakout and keeping the lead in native code development for a couple of years.
he recently developed SCTP (Stream Control Transport Protocol)4 incorporates support for multihoming at the protocol level, but it is impossible to export this support through the sockets API
The word that bugs me there, is "impossible". The question is, why? If you have to do something with sockets under the hood, then so be it, but it would seem to me that you could just add a few more fields to socket address to take into account multiple homes.
We've already had alternative APIs to sockets and for quite some time. sockets won. There were named pipes, ipx/spx, and the seemingly stupid idea of treating a network resource as a file has trumped every time.
I would be willing to bet that McDonalds and Panera share more than a few suppliers for their products. I think selectivity in food probably doesn't actually buy you too much in the long run. The human body has evolved to eat some genuinely sick stuff, and even the Golden Arches is a damn site better than a few bits of rib meat from a four day dead Zebra. If there's a problem with McDonalds, and other modern foods, medical science seems more to conclude that the food is actually -too good- for us, and so we get fat. I think the only thing one can do is probably fast one day a week, to simulate the conditions for which we are bred.
Maybe this is how you feel, there may be a grain of truth in there (although I see little evidence for it), but even so: two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs do not make a right, tis true. We added prescription drugs to Medicare, increased Federal spending across the board, brought the federal government into local schools, all as olive branches out to the left, and look what it bought us. Nothing. Reaching out to the left got us nothing, so there's really no point to doing it. What I don't get though, is how, after pretty much ignoring every overture from Republicans in the interest of gaining power for themselves, how Democrats expect that dictators around the world would somehow act -better-.
The whole point of McDonalds was to get the people in and get them out, as quickly as possible. IF you go to any decently run McDonalds, there will be several times as many cars as there are in any other food place in the area. Those franchises just print money. Putting in wifi just slows down the presses.
I've been to Panera Bread and honestly its too crowded for wifi to be any fun. The food's pretty good, for sure, but it's like $25 for myself and my wife to get the soup + sandwich combo, a cookie and soda each.
By comparison, I can go to a McDonald's, and for $4 I can get four McDoubles, which, will not only fill you up, but also keep you pretty regular. Now Panera is pretty good - although their soups are ridiculously salty, but, are they better 6 times better than McDonalds? I think not.
What he could have done was to have a carry permit and a loaded pistol. If the rent-a-cop says he is going to tackle the dude, then he would just tell the rent-a-cop that he was just taking pictures, is leaving, and, if the rent-a-cop tries to tackle him, he will be shot. That would leave the rent-a-cop with the option of trying to shoot you first, or tackling someone with a gun, neither of which is a good option. Of course, the renta might actually try either, in which case, you have to shoot first.
Bottom line is, if that confrontation isn't worth it to you, or to anyone, then renta-cops are just going to get more and more out of control. The only way to reason with a bully is with your fist.
If the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in Washington State then it's unconstitutional across all 50 state
Actually, no. The problem is in the wording of the law in Washington versus the wording of the law in other states. Bottom line is, SCOTUS is perfectly entitled to make a ruling that says that one state's law is unconstitutional but another state's law is not.
And if you're so afraid of those big mean bad men that you'll throw innocents to the wolves, then maybe your heart, conscience and courage could stand some reflection
I'm damned already, so it doesn't matter. But I have a son and so any policy that eliminates any threat to him is a good one in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).
Oh for heavens sake will you put this "we are all the same." The only reason evolution is taught like this is that left wingers didn't want capitalists to use evolution as an argument for laissez fair economics, and no one wanted evolution to be used as an excuse for genocide. It's a well intended lie, but its still a lie.
The fact is, some things are better than others in the scope of their environment. Size brings complexity and with complexity comes a reduced pace of life and adaptation. We can manage the environment as individuals better than a bacteria could, but bacteria outsurvive us because they breed faster.
Interesting. Why do you believe that?
Because the truth of the matter is twofold:
a) First Democrats were terrified of losing everything in the wake of 9/11. Up until the invasion of Iraq, their strategy was to try and out Republican the Republicans on national security. And, the American people were -super- pissed off. There was a poll that came out just after 9/11 that showed that 90% of all Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Despite the whole classroom incident, Bush on the rubble at the WTC with the megaphone was one of the greatest moments of any President in our lifetime, so great, frankly, that he milked that one moment for the rest of his term without ever really living up to it again.
You have to remember that if Democrats go lefty after 9/11, they might lose the Senate worse than they did. In those days, a Republican veto proof majority meant that Social Security becomes privatized. With the stakes that high, there's really no limit to what the Democrats would do to save their baby.
b) Democrats are actually patriots too, and they might have actually felt betrayed. Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions, let Pakistan become completely islamified and ignored crackdowns in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and finally we bombed the wrong side in the balkans war, to do a favor to the muslims.
All of this brought us nothing, but 9/11. So yeah, they were in a political climate where they felt they had to be ruthless, or lose everything.
When you adjust for inflation, during Bush's second term the NIH budget shrank. It actually got smaller. You can find the change rates as published in the New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665/F1 [nejm.org]
The same chart shows that Bush raised the NIH budget by almost 15% for each of his first four years. This is after adjusting for inflation. In fact, we can find some more direct evidence:
The ASM has endorsed a $2.7 billion increase for the NIH in FY 2001, a 15 percent increase in funding which would bring the NIH budget to a level of $20.6 billion.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/5509/1677b?ck=nck
"President George W. Bush said last week that he will request a record $2.8 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health in his 2002 budget proposal. But some biomedical science groups say that the figure--a 13.8% boost, to $23.1 billion--is only a starting point for their campaign to win a $3.4 billion boost."
And, finally:
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/ui/2008/Summary%20of%20FY%202009%20Budget-Press%20Release.pdf
"The FY 2009 Discretionary Budget Authority request for the NIH is $29,230 million"
So, over the course of his entire term, Bush boosted funding for NIH from 20 billion to 30 billion. The bulk of the increases came during his first term. Note that despite having spent 200 billion dollars over the last 8 years, there have no cures for cancer, the flu, or the cold. So, not only did this olive branch of increased federal spending completely fail the Republicans politically, if we go by the left's yardstick of missile defense, the scientists doing all this research actually accomplished nothing.
Actually, my comment was not designed to highlight how all the "good stuff" gets funded better by Democrats. I was hinting at the fact that Bush's administration gave the NIH a really shitty budget. Period. That's what I meant by all research. I meant everything funded by NI
Bush doubled the NIH budget. The one cut there was was in his last year, but that still left them far above the levels when he got in.
In fact, I would bet that if we had a time machine, ALL research would probably do better without Bush, with the exception of "research" done to support abstinence only programs and homosexual conversion therapy.
Please, spare the hype. We could just as easily say that the only thing Democrats want to research is how to turn us into government cheese gobbling
homos. I mean, after all, Democrats have no problem spending 5 times as much on stopping HIV than they would the regular flu. God forbid we actually research a cure that benefits straight white males. One wonders why does everyone else have to give up smoking or eating decent food as prevention for heart disease or lung cancer, with no research into a cure, but, people can't be bothered to control their own sex lives?
Fact is, President Bush and the Republican Congress jacked up funding for a great many things that will likely be curtailed in this administration.
Research into fuel cells has been suspended by Obama. While this seems like a big hurrah for those think the hydrogen economy is a sham, the underlying problem of fuel cells is about designed better and better membranes to allow the hydrogen and oxygen to pass through and give up the electron on the way to becoming water. There's all sorts of fringe benefits from membrane research - including desalination, environmental cleanup, better time release for pills, and so on. But President DUMB ASS killed that because he had to suck it up to his windmill worshipping anti-car crowd.
Any research into missile defense is going to be stopped. It has nothing to do with the engineering problem being difficult - after all, a lot of other things the fed is plowing money into is hard. It's just that, Democrats think we are all safer when we are naked nuclear targets. So, in order make Democrats feel good, we lose all the experimental data for reactivity in hypersonic realm, which would certainly benefit civilian space flight.
Speaking of space flight, there's a pretty big rumor that Democrats want to kill the NASA manned space effort. Guess putting people on Mars, learning how to survive in deep space for extended periods, is not such a big deal. Guess we'll just stay on earth for all eternity.. way to go Dems.
Any research into medical differences due to race and gender are going to be crushed, as Democrats usually try and crush any scientific research that highlights physiological differences between different people. Perhaps they are willing to let people die to avoid offending their obsessive quest for a made up physical equality.
Managed to obtain marketshare due to anti-competitive behaviors that put Netscape out of busines
IE was better than Netscape, and, Apache did more to kill Netscape than Microsoft did. Netscape's money business was going to be selling expensive web servers to enterprises, and Apache gave one away for free.
If I was a drug lord, why would I even bother with a pricey American made AR-15 style semi-auto, when I can get a cheaper military surplus AK-74 with a full auto switch, and some RPGs...
The thing is, you really don't need a lot of people for a biotech drug conspiracy. Most of the prime movers are phds and so there's not that many to begin with. Everyone else below the chain can be manipulated to some degree.
I was a programmer for a class action lawsuit where the scientists stuffed the placebo group with dying people, and actually one dead person, in order to gin up the efficacy of their drug. They published their findings and got the stock to their little biotech company to go through the roof, and it all came crashing down when the FDA told the scientists, and the rest of the world, that their application was basically b.s. Of course, the scientists had sold -their- stock beforehand, so they got rich.
But, to do so, they had:
a) misrepresented the drug's efficacy to actual patients.
b) lied to thousands of investors.
And you know, THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. Yeah, they had to settle for a mountain of money, but they had already got a bigger mountain of money.
I keep hearing about how all of these other ground based telescopes with adaptive optics are "better than Hubble", but I've yet to see a single one actually top the four pixel image Hubble made of Pluto. Let me know when any ground based telescope can actually resolve Pluto's surface features, and then I'll be a believer.
The thing is, adaptive optics have limitations. Hubble does not have them. Space based astronomy is a powerful asset.
Quite honestly, I think the whole debate over manned versus unmanned space flight is rather senseless. When I run for Senate as a Republican, I promise I will accuse Democrats of losing the space race and triple NASA's budget so that we have:
a) a second generation re-usable space plane... just because, it would be bad ass.
b) the constellation for long range moon, asteroid and mars missions that are manned.
c) I want f--- JIMO to be built. I want nuclear powered robot space craft flying all over the solar system. Let's go find out if there is life on Europa.
d) Fund a solar sail as well.
Doing all of that would have a space exploration budget of 50 billion a year. That is completely chump change compared to the overall US budget.
Firefox mplements many features which are not published standards
All the -moz CSS3 tags that FireFox has can be very useful. In particular, the one for multicolumn text is nice, as is rounded corners on the web page.
What a wonderfully US'ian idea !
Turn the taking of a couple of photographs into the Gunfight at the OK Coral.
Hey, we take our picture taking seriously over on the this side of the pond. I would have thought my post moderate, as I could have advocated that the young man have a UAV following him around via his cell phones GPS. Then, when the rentas tried to hastle him, he could have invoked a 500lb bomb upon himself. Nobody would ever question that ATM again!
Can they actually do that? My understanding is that the landing gear are still not remotely deployable.
I think not. I actually met one of the programmers that did the flight control software for the Buran. He used to joke, Americans put astronauts in spaceships because their remote control is not as good as ours.
It doesn't matter what their market share is, Microsoft already lost. The web is now firmly based on open standards, not proprietary technology tied to a specific operating system.
If someone could make a browser that did something that was not part of the standards, that appealed strongly to content producers, then, you could get a proprietary based internet. It's that CSS / HTML does the job that people perceive they want Browsers to do.
There's only perception of a barrier. IE rocketed to the top because it was better. Everyone wrote for it as it had a working (as in fully scriptable) DOM and supporting Netscape was a huge PITA. But there was not near the content on the web in the late 1990s, when this all happened, as there is today. So there's inertia, but inertia is not a barrier. If alternative browsers continue to execute well, and IE continues to stagnate, then, IE will naturally lose and we will reach a time when people will only support FireFox...just like they ditched Netscape.
its heat shield is replaced after every launch as it wasn't designed to be perfect
The replacing the tiles after every launch was actually not part of the original program. Originally the Shuttle was supposed to have a 10 day turnaround time. Like, it lands, they clean it up a bit, and send it off to orbit, almost like an aircraft. You know, it is a -spaceplane-. I still have the Rockwell literature from when I was a kid on it.
Anyway, I think the first cracked or damaged tiles showed up on the first flight. Then the Challenger accident introduced even more procedures. Had we stuck to the original plans for the shuttle, and had a fleet of 10 or so, we would have had a much better STS.
I was actually pretty anti-shuttle for a while but I've come to really appreciate it. I'm actually secretly hoping that Congress will do the politically nutty thing and keep the shuttle, with incremental improvements, to sustain LEO development and recovery of in space objects, and also have the Constellation for long range missions.
While from a human health perspective, free range chicken and cows seem the "natural way to go", it does use a lot of land and land use is a big factor in greenhouse gasses. Conversely, the industrial chicken coop could store thousands of chickens in a rather small, almost hermetically sealed building.
Whaddya think of KDE 4.2.x? :D
Also, I've never used QT Creator. *downloads it*
I think KDE 4.2 is bad-ass. I give it 3.5 out of 4 stars. This is from someone who has posted that Vista is better than Ubuntu or Kubuntu. I couldn't stand KDE 4.0 but I really like KDE 4.2. It's got that ease of use that I like so much about Gnome but it also has the workmanship and flexibility that I like from KDE. I would say that its as good as Vista in -some- areas, and arguably better in others. The assignment of applets to the task bar is better in KDE - actually always has been, but Vista still has way better common file dialogs.
QT Creator is pretty cool. I made a simple application that looks at SVG files and pulls stuff out, displaying them, and it was pretty easy to do in Qt Creator. I could not figure out how to get the forms editor to blend with normal edited code, but I'm sure there is a way. The forms editor itself is much better than the resource editor that comes with Visual Studio, the signals and slots mechanism is interesting coming from an MFC style event binding mechanism, and, above all, the class help is indexed much better than the SDK help is in Visual C++.
I would say that Visual Studio is still better for general C++ development because the intellisense works better... but you can certainly make pretty damned applications for Linux and in some ways Linux is better. I've had 64 bit Linux running for four years now and Microsoft cannot bring a 64 bit Windows to my machine because there is no signed SATA controller driver. Me wonders, how does Linux make all of these drivers for free, when they have no money?
Microsoft needs to move off their laurels because Linux tools are really recapturing the lead in C++. Microsoft needs to make Visual C++ 10.0 a killer for writing native code applications, or they are looking at Linux making a major development breakout and keeping the lead in native code development for a couple of years.
he recently developed SCTP (Stream Control Transport Protocol)4 incorporates support for multihoming at the protocol level, but it is impossible to export this support through the sockets API
The word that bugs me there, is "impossible". The question is, why? If you have to do something with sockets under the hood, then so be it, but it would seem to me that you could just add a few more fields to socket address to take into account multiple homes.
We've already had alternative APIs to sockets and for quite some time. sockets won. There were named pipes, ipx/spx, and the seemingly stupid idea of treating a network resource as a file has trumped every time.
I'm selective about what I eat from there
I would be willing to bet that McDonalds and Panera share more than a few suppliers for their products. I think selectivity in food probably doesn't actually buy you too much in the long run. The human body has evolved to eat some genuinely sick stuff, and even the Golden Arches is a damn site better than a few bits of rib meat from a four day dead Zebra. If there's a problem with McDonalds, and other modern foods, medical science seems more to conclude that the food is actually -too good- for us, and so we get fat. I think the only thing one can do is probably fast one day a week, to simulate the conditions for which we are bred.
Maybe this is how you feel, there may be a grain of truth in there (although I see little evidence for it), but even so: two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs do not make a right, tis true. We added prescription drugs to Medicare, increased Federal spending across the board, brought the federal government into local schools, all as olive branches out to the left, and look what it bought us. Nothing. Reaching out to the left got us nothing, so there's really no point to doing it. What I don't get though, is how, after pretty much ignoring every overture from Republicans in the interest of gaining power for themselves, how Democrats expect that dictators around the world would somehow act -better-.
The whole point of McDonalds was to get the people in and get them out, as quickly as possible. IF you go to any decently run McDonalds, there will be several times as many cars as there are in any other food place in the area. Those franchises just print money. Putting in wifi just slows down the presses.
I've been to Panera Bread and honestly its too crowded for wifi to be any fun. The food's pretty good, for sure, but it's like $25 for myself and my wife to get the soup + sandwich combo, a cookie and soda each.
By comparison, I can go to a McDonald's, and for $4 I can get four McDoubles, which, will not only fill you up, but also keep you pretty regular. Now Panera is pretty good - although their soups are ridiculously salty, but, are they better 6 times better than McDonalds? I think not.
What he could have done was to have a carry permit and a loaded pistol. If the rent-a-cop says he is going to tackle the dude, then he would just tell the rent-a-cop that he was just taking pictures, is leaving, and, if the rent-a-cop tries to tackle him, he will be shot. That would leave the rent-a-cop with the option of trying to shoot you first, or tackling someone with a gun, neither of which is a good option. Of course, the renta might actually try either, in which case, you have to shoot first.
Bottom line is, if that confrontation isn't worth it to you, or to anyone, then renta-cops are just going to get more and more out of control. The only way to reason with a bully is with your fist.
If the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in Washington State then it's unconstitutional across all 50 state
Actually, no. The problem is in the wording of the law in Washington versus the wording of the law in other states. Bottom line is, SCOTUS is perfectly entitled to make a ruling that says that one state's law is unconstitutional but another state's law is not.
And if you're so afraid of those big mean bad men that you'll throw innocents to the wolves, then maybe your heart, conscience and courage could stand some reflection
I'm damned already, so it doesn't matter. But I have a son and so any policy that eliminates any threat to him is a good one in my book.